I really want to hear Christians respond. How is it that you think Jesus actually died for your sins? According to this story, the guy didn't stay dead. What kind of sacrifice is that? In the OT the slaughtered cattle didn't come back. Now, a God named Yahweh supposedly made everything (knowing what would happen), and planned it all out so that it would happen just the way he wanted it to (his "divine plan") just so he could come down and sacrifice himself, to himself, then preach to some people in hell for three days only to come back to life? Does this honestly make any sense to you? If so, how? A real hero would actually stay dead. His sacrifice would be a true loss for him (i.e. - he would lose everything in order that we would gain) - but that is not what happened according to the bible. God didn't kill himself so that we could live. So, why should we think this story is true? Doesn't it just sound more like foolish men made it all up (just like in other religions)?

Christians, please help us non-believers understand why you believe this story (what good reason do you have) and why should anybody think it makes any sense?

Everybody lives after they die, silly It was the suffering that counted.But if I were Jesus I would have deployed a bit of secret heavenly magic analgesia - wouldn't you if you could? Only a very sick-in-the-head person enjoys their own suffering when they have the power to prevent it.

Possibly they focus more on the resurrection, which is your symbolic rebirth.

I don't know if the gospel and the Paul really concentrate on the sacrifice all that much. Paul just says that whatever he did, killed your sins. I think modern Christians have invented the ultimate sacrifice/died for our sins.

Think of Jesus more as a corn dolly that is buried for a fertility right. He resurrects and the spirit vibes transfer into the new earth, and the world then ends.

Logged

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

Possibly they focus more on the resurrection, which is your symbolic rebirth.

In my days a Christian (Catholic) it was definitely ALL about the suffering - the guilt trip ruled! It was we sinners who did this to Jesus. It was the cumulative burden of all sin that caused this - nobody could escape blame. The Jews took more of the blame of course because they actually got all this done to their own Messiah and we enlightened Christians would/should never make the same mistake as the Jews (Involving the Jews as the real villains was perfect because if the guilt of causing the suffering of Jesus was too much to bear - like you'd prefer to accept your own punishment or kill yourself instead of Jesus, you could mentally shift just enough blame onto the Jews to make it palatable to be vicariously saved. )

Think about the "Stations of the Cross" where they dwell and reflect on the gory details of every torturous stage of the crucifixion. It's designed to make you feel as shitty as possible about being implicated through sin. Think about the Mel Gibson movie or the Philippine re-enactments.

Everything is to showcase the suffering - the more horrid the better - that's what makes believers emotional and incapable of being rational about Jesus. That raw emotion - empathy and guilt - is the engine room of the Christian meme.

The bit about the resurrection was more of a pressure release - the fucking ordeal was finally behind us and there was hope, and we could break the Easter fast. All that flying around like Superman, scaring people, fish finding, pwning Thomas, etc was just a final bit of icing-on-top proof that this guy really was divine and fulfilled prophecies.

I keep pointing this out to christians; if you can create an entire universe in a mere six days which involved inter alia poofing into existence humans in the form of Adam and Eve and all other living organisms then resurrecting anyone after three days is a mere parlour trick.

Furthermore, if you happen to be the omniscient and omnipotent creator of all things then you know you're going to be resurrected after three days and you're not sacrificing anything at all.

Even if you allow for the theological position that jesus was in hell, suffering, for those three days it still pales into insignificance when compared with the theological position that failing to worship the bloke who spent three days in hell for you means you get to spend eternity there.

If the story was true then it would be an extremely unimpressive "sacrifice"; about as impressive as me giving up smoking for lent.

And He prayed to Himself too in the cross, since there's only one God.

Pretty funny how Christians try to rationalize this blatant contradiction within their theology (the triune Godhead?). The bible clearly says there is only one God. Yet at the same time it mentions at least three separate Gods as such (in fact it mentions more than that if you count demons, idols, etc). Such is the M.O. of religion - use rationality and critical thinking in everything else in life - except the one particular religion you happen to belong to.

Weren't the Christians during Roman times trying to make their religion more palatable to the pagan's/non-believers? Isn't this why so many Christian doctrines sound pagan in origin? It seems quite plausible that Paul was the one who created Christianity and spread it.

Hey guys, I'm a Christian and hope to discuss things with you. My username means that I am skeptical of non-belief. It's kind of a "reverse" of the normal use for skeptic.

With that said, I would like to say that Jesus' sacrifice was important because He willingly did it. That is the ultimate act of love. Jesus showed that he conquered death. Everybody dies, but Jesus was an exception. That's what made it so extraordinary.

In the Old Testament, blood of an innocent lamb was used on the door's of the Hebrews. This represented how an innocent animal must be sacrificed to atone for sins. This was foreshadowing the New testament where jesus is the innocent lamb and used as a final sacrifice for all. That's why animal sacrifices are not needed anymore.

jesus was the ultimate innocent sacrifice. I know a lot of people think of the OT as "Evil" and "barbaric" but it is not. There are reasons God does what he does. Blood spread o the door was not evil and barbaric. It symbolized the coming of Jesus' sacrifice in the New Testament.

I hope this helps. I'm not here to preach, just to explain my point of view. I will not just be quoting the Bible mindlessly.

Jesus' sacrifice was important because He willingly did it. That is the ultimate act of love. Jesus showed that he conquered death. Everybody dies, but Jesus was an exception. That's what made it so extraordinary.

Did he know that he was going to be resurrected? If so, then why is it that big a deal that he died, when he knew he would be saved anyway? Related: did Jesus spend his three-day slumber in heaven? If so, it doesn't sound like too big a sacrifice to me.

Logged

I'm here every now and again.We're gonna rock down to Alexis Avenue, he makes the score go higher!

skeptic54768, Welcome to the forum. Please make sure to read and observe all of the forum rules and learn how to use the quote function properly when responding to specific posts. The quote function will come in very handy and will make life much easier for everyone. I will begin now by responding to your responses below while using that function Let reason be our guide!

Hey guys, I'm a Christian and hope to discuss things with you. My username means that I am skeptical of non-belief. It's kind of a "reverse" of the normal use for skeptic.

This, unfortunately, is an often used 'trick' by Christian apologists in an attempt to shift the burden of proof. However, it doesn't work because the negative of a negative is a positive. Think for example about whether or not you are skeptical of non-belief in Unicorns. This would be fundamentally no different from saying you believe in unicorns. So saying you are "skeptical of non-belief" is merely to confuse language by using the negative of a negative. Why not just admit you believe X things and move forward with providing evidence? This seems like a much more honest and accurate approach to discussion and debate.

With that said, I would like to say that Jesus' sacrifice was important because He willingly did it. That is the ultimate act of love. Jesus showed that he conquered death. Everybody dies, but Jesus was an exception. That's what made it so extraordinary.

The point of the OP (Original Post) was that, according to what the bible claims, Jesus didn't stay dead and so his "sacrifice" wasn't genuine - especially since he was supposedly God in flesh. So God sacrificed himself, to himself (but didn't actually stay dead) in order to "save us" from himself? Isn't this God supposed to be all-powerful? If so, it doesn't seem this action (if it happened) did anything at all b/c an all-powerful God cannot lack anything, and therefore by definition cannot sacrifice anything. Do you follow? If God requires a sacrifice (and I think this is an absurd idea) why would a very short three days away from earth be sufficient? The point is, if he didn't stay dead (and therefore actually lose something) then this doesn't seem to count as a real sacrifice at all.

In the Old Testament, blood of an innocent lamb was used on the door's of the Hebrews. This represented how an innocent animal must be sacrificed to atone for sins. This was foreshadowing the New testament where jesus is the innocent lamb and used as a final sacrifice for all. That's why animal sacrifices are not needed anymore.

So slaughtering something innocent (i.e. - a bull, lamb, or person) somehow makes it so that we are no longer responsible for our actions? How? Would you sacrifice your son or daughter if you thought God told you to (like Abraham supposedly) and if you thought other people would forget about how you wronged them? The idea of blood sacrifice doesn't seem to have any connection whatsoever to our actions, other than just a divine dictator saying, "This is how it is", but is that kind of dictatorship moral? How can we evaluate whether or not this alleged God is actually "good" or not? In other words, how can we determine if a sacrifice is necessary?

jesus was the ultimate innocent sacrifice. I know a lot of people think of the OT as "Evil" and "barbaric" but it is not. There are reasons God does what he does. Blood spread o the door was not evil and barbaric. It symbolized the coming of Jesus' sacrifice in the New Testament.

You don't think mass genocide, human sacrifice, slavery, infanticide, and rape are barbaric or evil? What could be more barbaric than those? I won't assume you have read the whole bible but many of us here (including myself) have and find those "reasons" quite wrong and irrational. Have you read the passages in 1 Samuel 15 where God supposedly commands the slaying of women and children, or Psalm 127 where God supposedly says, "Blessed is he who dashes the little babies against the stone"? In Exodus 21 God allegedly sanctions slavery (owning people as property) and in Judges 11 God condones human sacrifice. Can you think of any situation where this would be morally OK? It would seem to me that if a sacrifice is required for wrong doing then God himself needs a sacrifice for his wrong doing. I do realize this will likely get us into discussing the Euthyphro Dilemma but that's OK.

If Jesus was God, and was the ultimate sacrifice, why didn't he stay dead? A real "sacrifice" would require a loss, don't you think? But in this story, God didn't lose himself did he? Can God lose anything? He didn't really even die b/c his real self was (supposedly) immaterial and lived on (isn't he supposed to be eternal?). Of course, I personally don't think any of this took place at all but I think it's important to think critically about these doctrines - especially when there is so much at stake. Don't you?

I hope this helps. I'm not here to preach, just to explain my point of view. I will not just be quoting the Bible mindlessly.

I am glad about this, and for what it's worth I used to believe these things too until I ran into a bunch of ex-Christian folks like us here and had to change my view to better fit with sound reasoning and intellectual honesty

Did he know that he was going to be resurrected? If so, then why is it that big a deal that he died, when he knew he would be saved anyway? Related: did Jesus spend his three-day slumber in heaven? If so, it doesn't sound like too big a sacrifice to me.

Jesus knew he would be resurrected since the beginning of time. Imagine the agony of preparing for the sacrifice since the beginning of time. How dreadful it must have been.

Jesus also had the weight of everyone's sins so He experienced way more pain than anyone has ever had. Imagine the heavy burden Jesus had.

As to where jesus was for the 3 days, he was dead. No afterlife or anything. Just in a state of death, most likely how atheists view death.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

This, unfortunately, is an often used 'trick' by Christian apologists in an attempt to shift the burden of proof. However, it doesn't work because the negative of a negative is a positive. Think for example about whether or not you are skeptical of non-belief in Unicorns. This would be fundamentally no different from saying you believe in unicorns. So saying you are "skeptical of non-belief" is merely to confuse language by using the negative of a negative. Why not just admit you believe X things and move forward with providing evidence? This seems like a much more honest and accurate approach to discussion and debate.

I do not see unicorns the same way as God.

I had a spiritual experience with God. I never had a spiritual experience with unicorns. Many people around the world always claim to spiritually experience God, not unicorns.

The point of the OP (Original Post) was that, according to what the bible claims, Jesus didn't stay dead and so his "sacrifice" wasn't genuine - especially since he was supposedly God in flesh. So God sacrificed himself, to himself (but didn't actually stay dead) in order to "save us" from himself? Isn't this God supposed to be all-powerful? If so, it doesn't seem this action (if it happened) did anything at all b/c an all-powerful God cannot lack anything, and therefore by definition cannot sacrifice anything. Do you follow? If God requires a sacrifice (and I think this is an absurd idea) why would a very short three days away from earth be sufficient? The point is, if he didn't stay dead (and therefore actually lose something) then this doesn't seem to count as a real sacrifice at all.

These are the kind of questions where I would have to know God's thought processes in order to answer them.

I do not know why he picked 3 days. But, I also do not know why he picked 3 days for Jonah in the whale either. I also don't know why God is 3 persons that make up 1. Why not 5, 6, or 7, etc...?

All I know is that a lot of things in the Bible are based on the number 3. I can not tell you why God picked the number 3.

So slaughtering something innocent (i.e. - a bull, lamb, or person) somehow makes it so that we are no longer responsible for our actions? How? Would you sacrifice your son or daughter if you thought God told you to (like Abraham supposedly) and if you thought other people would forget about how you wronged them? The idea of blood sacrifice doesn't seem to have any connection whatsoever to our actions, other than just a divine dictator saying, "This is how it is", but is that kind of dictatorship moral? How can we evaluate whether or not this alleged God is actually "good" or not? In other words, how can we determine if a sacrifice is necessary?

I do not have kids, but if God told me to sacrifice one of them, I would do it. Like I said, I have no fear. God knows best. The afterlife is where my child will go, which is the end goal.

The child is also not mine. The child is God's. So it would be God asking for his own child if you really think about it. Nothing in this world is ours. it all belongs to God. God does what He thinks is necessary for His plan. I can not question the creator of everything. God was generous to create a world for us.

Right now you may be thinking, "What a sicko!" but I believe you may be missing the point. God will never ask me to do that because sacrificing is OVER. Jesus completed it. No more sacrifices. If 'God' told me to sacrifice my child, it would be a demon masquerading as God to try and fool me, and I wouldn't end up doing it anyway.

You don't think mass genocide, human sacrifice, slavery, infanticide, and rape are barbaric or evil? What could be more barbaric than those? I won't assume you have read the whole bible but many of us here (including myself) have and find those "reasons" quite wrong and irrational. Have you read the passages in 1 Samuel 15 where God supposedly commands the slaying of women and children, or Psalm 127 where God supposedly says, "Blessed is he who dashes the little babies against the stone"? In Exodus 21 God allegedly sanctions slavery (owning people as property) and in Judges 11 God condones human sacrifice. Can you think of any situation where this would be morally OK? It would seem to me that if a sacrifice is required for wrong doing then God himself needs a sacrifice for his wrong doing. I do realize this will likely get us into discussing the Euthyphro Dilemma but that's OK.

A lot of those things were because the nations refused to worship the true God. They were all worshiping false gods and disobeying God. God gave them chance after chance after chance to repent but they did not do it. They knew the punishment was coming and they didn't care.

Any reasonable parent would stick to the punishment if their children broke the rules. Otherwise, the children will do whatever they want and that's not good. When you warn your child of what happens if they disobey, and they disobey you, you have to do what's necessary and punish them. This is why a judge doesn't say to a murderer in court, "Oh you murdered someone? No big deal. Go free." The judge must stick to the punishment.

If God is evil for enacting punishment, then judges are evil for sending people to prison. The people knew the risk they were taking, disobeyed the law anyway, and have to deal with the consequences. Don't blame the cops or judge.

If Jesus was God, and was the ultimate sacrifice, why didn't he stay dead? A real "sacrifice" would require a loss, don't you think? But in this story, God didn't lose himself did he? Can God lose anything? He didn't really even die b/c his real self was (supposedly) immaterial and lived on (isn't he supposed to be eternal?). Of course, I personally don't think any of this took place at all but I think it's important to think critically about these doctrines - especially when there is so much at stake. Don't you?

It's not about jesus having to lose something. It's about jesus being the ultimate innocent sacrifice to end all sacrifices.

I am glad about this, and for what it's worth I used to believe these things too until I ran into a bunch of ex-Christian folks like us here and had to change my view to better fit with sound reasoning and intellectual honesty I look forward to your reply and thank you for joining WWGHAF.

Jesus knew he would be resurrected since the beginning of time. Imagine the agony of preparing for the sacrifice since the beginning of time. How dreadful it must have been.

Jesus also had the weight of everyone's sins so He experienced way more pain than anyone has ever had. Imagine the heavy burden Jesus had.

As to where jesus was for the 3 days, he was dead. No afterlife or anything. Just in a state of death, most likely how atheists view death.

He had six hours of torture, with the reward being the son of God forever and ever. That wouldn't be too agonizing for me. Of course, the six hours of torture is bad, bad news, but being the King of Kings forever and ever seems like a good tradeoff to me. Once he died, it was basically like falling asleep for a bit, only to wake up and be ascended into heaven.

So I still don't see where the "sacrifice" comes in. He took some temporary pain, that's all. And he didn't even fully die--he was resurrected. So in the end, Jesus had no net loss from this. Maybe some scars, that's all. So I don't see your point of Jesus being the ultimate sacrifice.

Logged

I'm here every now and again.We're gonna rock down to Alexis Avenue, he makes the score go higher!

He had six hours of torture, with the reward being the son of God forever and ever. That wouldn't be too agonizing for me. Of course, the six hours of torture is bad, bad news, but being the King of Kings forever and ever seems like a good tradeoff to me. Once he died, it was basically like falling asleep for a bit, only to wake up and be ascended into heaven.

So I still don't see where the "sacrifice" comes in. He took some temporary pain, that's all. And he didn't even fully die--he was resurrected. So in the end, Jesus had no net loss from this. Maybe some scars, that's all. So I don't see your point of Jesus being the ultimate sacrifice.

You are looking at it from a materialistic point of view. Religious things need to be seen from the spiritual point of view. This is important if you want to discuss our beliefs the right way.

It's not about the 6 hours. It's about Jesus being innocent and choosing to sacrifice Himself. He did not have to take on our sins, but He chose to. He chose to suffer in the same way his creations suffer. He loved us enough to BECOME like us. I find that extraordinarily loving.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Do you understand what's being asked in terms of sacrifice? The word denotes loss, a surrendering of something prized or desirable. What did Jesus give up that he could never reclaim?

Jesus gave up his Heavenly status in order to become human. He then went back after it was fulfilled.

The focus should be on the "innocent" part of the sacrifice, not on Jesus losing something. The fact is that Jesus was innocent and chose to do it. That is the important thing. Try to focus on the spiritual aspect of it.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

I had a spiritual experience with God. I never had a spiritual experience with unicorns. Many people around the world always claim to spiritually experience God, not unicorns.

That is why I believe it is unfair to compare the two.

I have personally spoken to people who, just like you, have had spiritual experiences of Allah, (Rav)Indra, Vishnu, the Crone aspect of the Triple Goddess, Yahweh, Odin, the Buddha and Satan. So, they're all right?

Hell, if you talk to enough Wiccans and neo-druids, you'll probably come across some that HAVE had spiritual experiences of unicorns.

By your reasoning, we now must accept the existance of all of these mentioned and it is up to the Atheist to provide proof that each and every one of them does not exist ... yeah.

Also, since you are skeptical of our non-belief in your deity of choice ... are you also skeptical of your own disbelief in, say, Odin? Do you deep down know, in your heart, that Odin is real, you're just surpressing the knowledge?

I do not know why he picked 3 days. But, I also do not know why he picked 3 days for Jonah in the whale either. I also don't know why God is 3 persons that make up 1. Why not 5, 6, or 7, etc...?

All I know is that a lot of things in the Bible are based on the number 3. I can not tell you why God picked the number 3.

Since people didn't know what coma was, at the time, three days was the default time you had to wait before someone was considered dead (except, of course, if he was quite obviously not getting up from that spear to the head). No signs of life for three days ... he's dead.It's an Ancient Hebrew custom that got used in the bible.To show that you reallyreallyreally beat death, you had to do something, three days after being presumed dead. Well, actually getting up and walking around would do the trick, but lacking that, the next best thing is spinning a good yarn about such a thing.

I do not have kids, but if God told me to sacrifice one of them, I would do it. Like I said, I have no fear. God knows best. The afterlife is where my child will go, which is the end goal.

The child is also not mine. The child is God's. So it would be God asking for his own child if you really think about it. Nothing in this world is ours. it all belongs to God. God does what He thinks is necessary for His plan. I can not question the creator of everything. God was generous to create a world for us.

Right now you may be thinking, "What a sicko!" but I believe you may be missing the point. God will never ask me to do that because sacrificing is OVER. Jesus completed it. No more sacrifices. If 'God' told me to sacrifice my child, it would be a demon masquerading as God to try and fool me, and I wouldn't end up doing it anyway.

Again, I'm just trying to explain my view and thought process.

Your thought process seems to go along the lines of "whatever I like". The voices in your head tell you to do something. You like it => must be god, you dislike it => must be a demon. In other words, you're engaging in SPAG[1] ... just like pretty much all theists.

A lot of those things were because the nations refused to worship the true God. They were all worshiping false gods and disobeying God. God gave them chance after chance after chance to repent but they did not do it. They knew the punishment was coming and they didn't care.

What chance did god give the firstborn of Egypt? Or the babies that got their heads smashed against the rock? Or all the babies who drowned during the flood?Also, if they KNEW Yahweh was real, and the only god ... why not worship him?[2]Homer, towards the end of the Homeros at least has Athena make it juuuuust unclear enough whether or not Odysseus has divine help or not. So the suitors feel they have a chance. The OT ... well, that's just lazy writing.

Any reasonable parent would stick to the punishment if their children broke the rules. Otherwise, the children will do whatever they want and that's not good. When you warn your child of what happens if they disobey, and they disobey you, you have to do what's necessary and punish them. This is why a judge doesn't say to a murderer in court, "Oh you murdered someone? No big deal. Go free." The judge must stick to the punishment.

If God is evil for enacting punishment, then judges are evil for sending people to prison. The people knew the risk they were taking, disobeyed the law anyway, and have to deal with the consequences. Don't blame the cops or judge.

God is evil for setting up a no win situation in the garden of Eden and then punishing every single human ever for a crime he himself engineered. And he is evil for punishing some people FOR EVER! Absolutely no one ever deserves eternal punishment.

It's not about jesus having to lose something. It's about jesus being the ultimate innocent sacrifice to end all sacrifices.

Ultimate innocent, ok ... well, not ok, Jesus did condone slavery, after all. Sorry, not ultimately innocent.And as several others have pointed out, there was no sacrifice. So, you statement becomes "It's about jesus being the ultimate innocent to end all sacrifices."So ... just having Jesus exist was enough ... so ... why the torture and the three day nap? Does this god of yours get off on torture porn?

The Prophets merely described what jesus was going to do, based on Jesus' own choice.

This assertion is contradicted by reality. Every child is pressured to some extent by the expectations/ambitions their parents have for them - for example to be a professional, or a great artist, or to achieve something the parent could not (as in God's case.)

I asked you what options Jesus had? If Jesus walked away from his assignment the prophets would've been wrong and the Father would've been in his ear all day every day. God had an absolutely clear mission set out for Jesus - His only Son. And to think that Jesus could ever do something else is unscriptural:

Quote

Matthew 26: 39 He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.”

Something clean needs to be used to redeem the dirty. The dirty can not redeem the dirty.

This is bizarre contorted thinking. What happened to saying "sorry"? Repaying one's own debt? Being accountable for one's own actions?

The concept of vicarious redemption through human sacrifice is vile and immoral. No person of courage and integrity can accept it without becoming a slave to constant regret and guilt.

If any reasonable human being had known what was going on they would have acted to prevent the whole repugnant affair. But the full purpose of the deed only became clear later - when it was too late for moral people to protest about it.

So effectively we were duped into accepting a hideous sacrifice (enslaving us to guilt) on our behalf when we were not even there ourselves to negotiate alternatives. I cannot accept this and will never respect a God who works like this - one who denies me a moral choice.

My outrage at this vile idea overflows onto Christians who lack the moral fibre to see what's wrong with substitutionary atonement, and want me to believe it too, to pull me down to their level of obsequious fear. Luckily it's all fiction or I'd get really angry.